An extra 5 points wouldn't make much a difference. Well, because 5 points isn't much of a difference for like 99.999% of people, but the points do start to become more significant the further to the right of the bell curve you go. For instance, IQ of 180 = ~ 1 in 20.7 million people, whereas an IQ of 185 = ~ 1 in 137 million people. But this only speaks to rarity and deviation from the mean, not functional ability.

But, whatever. 5 points would do almost nothing for me, but 50 points would completely change my life, for a mix of better and worse. On one hand, I would be able to easily learn almost anything in a short period of time. Even at the age of 27, it would be easy to get a 2nd baccalaureate in something like math or physics, get a free ride for grad school, and easily get tenure at just about any university - without breaking a sweat. The only question is if I'd want to do such a thing and if I'd have the patience for the bureaucracy. I could also easily indulge myself in technology, develop something new/innovative, and sell out to Google or Facebook. The world would "be my oyster", but people wouldn't - I'd be more alienated than I already am, but is this really such a problem? Are other people worth it? I'm starting to think that, no, they're not - in general.

A marginally higher IQ would mean that it might be easier to fit into certain circles of people. For instance, an INTP with a 145+ IQ would fit right in and be kind of average at MIT, Google, NASA, whatever. So I don't buy the whole increased IQ = increased alienation idea. You might not fit in at the office, but you'd fit in at another office. Of course, past a certain point you won't fit in with anyone.. If you were Isaac Newton level genius, then you'd only "fit in" with encyclopedia entries.

I would have welcomed the extra IQ points in college, but now I'm plenty smart for the things I want to do. Smarter than most, I would say. My problems are with things like consistency, motivation, and keeping my mouth shut.

Yes. I feel my intelligence is lacking in certain areas. I could probably get a little better with practice.

Originally Posted by Polemarch

I was always smart, whatever smart means, so school was easy for me, and I never had to work hard. So I never really learned how to work hard. I've had to grudgingly, slowly, learn how to work hard as an adult. An extra 5 points of IQ wouldn't do much for me, but an extra 5 points of working hard would do wonders.

I can relate to that. I remember a few episodes as an adult in which I even cried because I couldn't understand something on my first try. I also assumed that if I didn't understand right away, I would never learn it. I think that's the reason why I never learned how to play a musical instrument. It takes too long for the body to learn it.

I score high on IQ tests but I think IQ is BS. (Richard Feynman's IQ was supposedly only 126) To me, intelligence is a broad, nebulous concept that comprehends much more than IQ. I guess I would be more likely to subscribe to something like Gardiner's theory of multiple intelligences.

Here's just one problem I have with the typical conception of intelligence: "fast" thinkers are supposed to be smarter than "slow" thinkers. Fast thinking is favored by most intelligence tests and, for that matter, most exams in school and elsewhere. In my own experience, the best thinking I've done is slow; a pondering over, perhaps, a weekend, slowly, deliberately and even deliciously playing with a problem--it can be painful and pleasurable at the same time. Most of my best ideas and inventions happen like this.

I'm hypertrophic in a few select areas but just smart enough in most other things (e.g., I wish I were better at understanding people). Maybe it was arrogant of me, and I'm not a competitive person with regard to other people, but I always thought it was funny when some people tried to compete with me in the few areas in which I excel. It was like, I couldn't have cared less, but they didn't have a clue about how easy these things were for me. Don't get the wrong idea, I never brag about my talents because I'm a really quiet, reserved introvert IRL and my abilities are what they are (i.e. normal to me). I don't even think my kids really appreciate my abilities and talents--this bothers me a little.

Here's just one problem I have with the typical conception of intelligence: "fast" thinkers are supposed to be smarter than "slow" thinkers. Fast thinking is favored by most intelligence tests and, for that matter, most exams in school and elsewhere. In my own experience, the best thinking I've done is slow; a pondering over, perhaps, a weekend, slowly, deliberately and even deliciously playing with a problem--it can be painful and pleasurable at the same time. Most of my best ideas and inventions happen like this.

I loooong time ago I read an study that reported that higher IQ scorers (cmon, IQ tests aptitutde so they do test cognitive ability to a degree*) showed less neurological activation than lower scorers, while completing an IQ test.

Which means they didn't try harder, they actually exerted less energy. It kinda makes sense to equate slow thinking with lesser intelligence because less intelligent people must work harder to achieve the same level of cognition. More effort and time to even reach the same baseline as intelligent people.

I think what you're talking about is pace, which is another thing altogether.

*just a warning in advance, not gonna argue validity of IQ with you. FYI, 126 is a pretty damn high IQ score.